No, the mindset is that having a bunch of guys who struggle their way through NU affects the experience of other students (and that those guys take the place of otherwise-deserving applicants).
Amateur hour with Coach Fitz
- Thread starter MC_Cat
- Start date
No, the mindset is that having a bunch of guys who struggle their way through NU affects the experience of other students (and that those guys take the place of otherwise-deserving applicants).
Probably at least half of the 95 schlorship FB players take slots that other applicants would get because of better grades. Solution = offer less scholarships? Join the Ivy League? Increase the size of student enrollment?
People are people. If someone excels at "something" (a sport, for instance--that's simply another kind of intelligence) that's real. It's no different than someone excelling at academics.
Tasker was a straight A student at his junior college. Not exactly an academic risk.
Actually, yes (not no). Because the mindset you describe is the exclusionary mindset of "those athletes don't really belong here" which is part and parcel of the irrational thinking I'm referring to, which is driven entirely by exclusivity.
And that's where the so-called smart people are really quite dumb. If you have greater demand for spots, something that always comes with football and basketball success, then you make your school more exclusive. Not less. And the fact that the football players take up some of those spots actually makes the school even more exclusive than that!
Last edited:
No, you don't know that you're going to go for two anyways, not with so much time left. Northwestern could force a safety, for example, which would negate the need to go for two. Small odds, but nonzero. Of course a turnover and a quick FG (like should have happened against Minny...) also is possible. But going for two early and missing it guarantees that you'll be chasing points, and indeed dictates your strategy when, going for one, there's a small chance of those incidents falling your way that I listed above. Patience is a virtue.
Absolutely. The score was at the time was 15-6 with 2 minutes left in the third quarter. Even if it is two minutes left in the fourth, you still kick the PAT to pull within 8--one score. Why chance being down by two scores when you can easily make it a one score game?
Had we kicked the PAT, it would have been 22-7 when we score again at 2:46 to go. You again kick the PAT to make it 22-14. Suddenly that onside kick gets a lot more interesting. Maybe the Gophers get a little tight sphinctered and the outcome is different.
I absolutely HATE it when teams go for 2 before the fourth quarter is halfway gone. I tell at the TV when it happens.
Last edited:
You're just going in circles. I'm telling you the reasoning behind NU's stance.
LOL! Northwestern can pioneer and become famous for their Special Education for Dumb Jocks program, which will bring great prestige and cash to NU. Give me a break!
Old fashioned thinking, and strategically and mathematically incorrect. We were down 15, meaning we need a two point conversion either way. You go for that two as early as possible, that way if you miss it you have the maximum amount of time left on the clock to reconfigure your strategy to account for the failed conversion.
Most of the other criticisms of Fitz' strategy I agree with, but on this he was correct.
"Northwestern, where our focus is on dimbulbs."
That'll keep top students coming to Northwestern.
That'll keep top students coming to Northwestern.
You say we "need" a two point conversion either way. Yet if we can reconfigure our strategy based on failing the two, then I guess we didn't "need" it after all.
Problem with your rationale is you have to assume offensive proficiency in the final 17 minutes that simply wasn't present for the first 43. At this point we had as many sack-fumbles as successful drives. When you have a chance to cut the game to 7 points, you take it.
No, then we need multiple touchdowns, which means that field goals are off the table. It also means that a shift to a much more pass oriented attack is needed, since our struggling offense is going to have to maximize yards per play and stop the clock as much as possible. The clock doesn't just start becoming a factor at 8 minutes left in the 4th or 5 minutes or any other arbitrary 4th quarter distinction. We struggled to move the ball, execute, and score for three full quarters... the clock was ALREADY against us.
Not in the third quarter! Your point about the offensive struggles supports my comment, because going for 2 has a <50% probability of success, meaning that you will likely make it a two score game instead of a one score game. And when your offense is sucking gas, a two score game is trouble.
You only take that risk when you absolutely need to as your number of probable future possessions dwindles down to 1 or 2. When time is on your side, take the points (just ask LSU) and keep it a one score game.
Being down by 8 points >>>>>>> being down by 9 points.
Last edited:
Have you ever taken a look at the National Championships they have in FB? Yes a number of years ago but they have them.
The game was lost at the line. Our OL gave up how many sacks, etc? OL performs better and we do well against them. Plus they knocked out our top WR on an illegal hit. And another CB. We do not have the ability to build depth that way.
Well, we are both looking at the same information/circumstances and drawing opposite conclusions, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree
I refuse to let this die!Well, we are both looking at the same information/circumstances and drawing opposite conclusions, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree
Seriously, if the probability of converting is less than 50% (for NU, considerably less that day given their issues in short yardage situations), why would you willingly go down two scores when you could kick that PAT and keep at it one score? You keep pressure on Minny by keeping it to within one score. If you do get that onside kick at 22-14 and score the TD, you are down to making one play to tie the game. If surrender that one point in third quarter, you are in a position where you have to make more plays--mainly getting an extra possession.
Where you been? I've been saying this for years! Do you not recall me citing our mission statement and noting that it does not include selectivity or elitism?
You have no idea what happens next. NU misses that 2 point conversion and is down 9 instead of 8. "But now we know!" Except that a field goal makes it a two-touchdown game instead of a TD and field goal game.
Because one cannot predict the future, one must be conservative with 2 point conversions.
Going for two with three plus possessions left per side is far too early.
Well Mason liked the call, so, of course, you're wrong.
Oh wait, almost forgot. Of course, you're wrong.
Which CB? Hartage returned to the game after one series. Was there another CB injured?
Oh sh*t. I didn't realize this had gone on all day.
Jack, you're a genius. You go for two if and only if you reasonably expect it is your last possession of the game (when a TD gets you within two), or when a TD gets you within ten (pending conversion) and you have one more possession, or a TD gets you within 18 (pending conversion) and you have two more possessions.
The exceptions are:
- when you're going for the win instead of the tie, late, perhaps more frequently on the road, or
- when you're an underdog who is extremely confident in a trick play's potential
Haven't got all of your positions committed to memory, except of course, the "apologists" accept a crapfest and the "realist" understand they are looking at a crapfest.
For my taste, your view on this is too reliant on nebulous concepts like momentum and "keeping the pressure on." We must also weigh the benefit of a successful two point conversion into the equation, rather than only considering the downside risk.
An extra point is also not a given, especially this year.
These concepts feel like something out of the Amos Alonzo Stagg "Winning Football in the 1920s!" Handbook. What's next, one should never pass the football because there are more negative outcomes than running the football?
Not at all. It's all about probabilities and maximizing yield. The expected value of a two-point conversion is effectively zero as the success rate in college ball < 50% (for the Cats that day, I would argue it was very low given their short yardage issues).
There is no compelling reason to give up points in the third quarter when you are trailing by 1 or 2 scores, as the Cats were. 15-0 is a two score game. Eventually they would need a conversion to tie it at 15, but you really need the 7 points first to have the option to go for 2 to tie it later. Going for 2 then, failing, and leaving it at 15-6 kept it a two score game. That is the strategic failure.
Nope. Because you maximize your opportunity of winning by taking the 99% kick versus the 50% two-point conversion. (All the misses on 30+ extra points in the NFL change the math slightly. But the extra point in college football remains a gimme.)
Examples:
Super Bowl 38, NE v. CAR:
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history/boxscore/sbxxxviii
If the Panthers play it straight, Vinatieri's game-winner is a game-tie-er. [If CAR played it straight, the grand likelihood is that the score would have been 31-28 when Vinatieri walked out. CAR went for 2 with 13 minutes left, then scored two more touchdowns. They got 19 points where they should have gotten 21. Meanwhile, NE got 8 where they should have gotten 7, but that 8 versus 7 decision, with one possession remaining for each team, was immaterial.
Northwestern 43, Notre Dame 40
November 15, 2014
http://www.und.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2014-2015/nw.html
Kicking the extra point with 10 minutes left would have required two NU touchdowns, instead of touchdown + 2-pt + field goal to send it into OT.
You'll see many, many more examples of going for two hurting a team than helping a team. The downside of the missed point is far greater than the upside of the extra extra point when so many possessions are remaining and the endgame is totally unclear. (Note: Alviti scored a touchdown in this game! I knew he played, didn't know he scored. What a team!)
Going for 2 cost Carolina a chance at a Super Bowl, and cost Brian Kelly his dignity.
Expected value of a two point conversion isn't zero, it is ~0.84 points, granted less than the ~0.95 expected points of a PAT. (Pages 119-120). The exact number varies season to season. In aggregate the PAT is the better play (ignoring the efficacy of the kicker vs. the team's short yardage offense), but I guess I don't agree with you on the strategic value of hoping for the do-or-die two point attempt on the second score.
Please remember that the sarcasm meter is still broken and on backorder. Now that Trump has closed the borders, it is stuck in a dilapidated warehouse in smoggy Tanjin and Louie is going to have pay Armenian black marketers a small fortune to have it smuggled in via Mexico on some donkey's back through Boquillas.
Last edited:
That's one of the failures of Bayesian thinking. You cannot get .84 points. Over 100 conversion attempts, you will likely end up with 84 points. If you have one shot at it, chances are you get zero.
The anecdotal examples do not compel me, Brian Kelly's dignity notwithstanding. Your math above actually favors the 2 point try, but your math above is also closer to the NFL data (50% conversion rate on 2 point tries vs. the college success rate which hovers below 45%) than the NCAA data.
I understand your thinking, I just don't agree.
Assume it is 15-0 midway through the 4th quarter. You score a TD with 6 minutes to go to make it 15-6.
Do you kick the PAT or go for two?
Do you kick the PAT or go for two?
Similar threads
